I am 48, clearly I have stated that. Nor are your personal attacks acceptable, they are out of line. Disrespectful.

Reason is not a WAG, nor is it GIGO.

"Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this question way back in the 13th century. In the pondering of the concept of causality, the man noted that everything which happens in the natural universe has a cause. He also noted that there had to be an initial cause of the first things. He defined God as the initial causer of all things. God is "the uncaused cause," according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Although this is a very abstract definition and proof of God, it remains valid today."

I will agree that people who agree with WAG and what comes after GIGO have the right to believe that but I will not agree that it is reason.

We bring up in our discussion or are utilizing the subject fields of mathematics and physics in order to try to explain certain things which are related to space (really the cosmos or universe).

With that in mind, we are typically having the assumption that one way of approach regarding a specific subject is different / better than another way of approach to the same subject, meaning that things possibly could be explained in several different ways.

One or more ways at looking at such specific things within the field of science are the atheistic/agnostic/believer vs. non-believer or even the debunker way of wieving such things within the subject of science. We are trying to explain certain things as they appear to us in a "deterministic" way. Proof is needed in order to verify specific and certain things.

My best guess or assumption is that personal "belief" (possibly meaning or implying religious "belief") does not get home with everyone here.

Why is it so that everything can be explained by means of mathematics? Surely I got someone with me here when it comes to that 1/3 problem a little earlier (one piece of cake for three persons - who gets "the rest" of the cake?).

Same goes with pi (or 3.1415926). It is a number which apparently ever ends.

Perhaps I am believing in a God myself. Still we do have such problems (as well as others) to deal with which apparently does not have any solution to offer.

If I may, I was able to recollect a little earlier some ideas I had about something (a subject or study field) which might resemble the descriptions or postulations in John's Revelation.

Not exactly the same thing, but something different.

We bring up or are utilizing the subject fields of mathematics and physics in order to try to explain things that are related to space (really the cosmos or universe).

With that in mind, we are of the assumption that one way of approach regarding a specific subject is different / better than another way of approach.

One way of looking at such things are atheists/agnostic/believer- or non-believer or even debunker way.

My best guess is that personal "belief" (possibly meaning or implying religious "belief" does not get home with everyone.

Why is it so that everything can be explained by means of mathematics. Surely I got someone with me here when it comes to that 1/3 problem a little earlier (one piece of cake for three persons - who gets "the rest" of the cake?)

Same goes with pi (or 3.1415926). It is a number which ever ends.

Perhaps I am believing in a God. Still we do have such problems to deal with which apparently does not have a solution.

Not exactly the same thing, but apparently something different perhaps, but if I may, a little earlier I was able to recollect some ideas of importance that I had about something (a subject or study field) which might resemble John's Revelation.

Unfortunately this idea which came to me fell out of my head again, but not the same as yesterdays short posting, by the way.

Likewise if we are looking at science again, the same goes for our position in space. We are living in a galaxy in a universe which is assumed to have been created by something or someone (or has everything in existence been created by pure chance, luck, chaos or randomness?).

Randomness and chance are subject fields within mathematics. There may be some reason to believe that randomness and chaos ends up in total symmetry, but that such symmetry is never meant to be lasting for long.

The same goes for the computation of numbers (Seti@home / PrimeGrid). In many cases many numbers (or factors) are needed in order to be able to obtain one specific or particular end result which is desired.

I am 48, clearly I have stated that. Nor are your personal attacks acceptable, they are out of line. Disrespectful.

Reason is not a WAG, nor is it GIGO.

"Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this question way back in the 13th century. In the pondering of the concept of causality, the man noted that everything which happens in the natural universe has a cause. He also noted that there had to be an initial cause of the first things. He defined God as the initial causer of all things. God is "the uncaused cause," according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Although this is a very abstract definition and proof of God, it remains valid today."

I will agree that people who agree with WAG and what comes after GIGO have the right to believe that but I will not agree that it is reason.

Will you stop repeating yourself.
Of course Thomas Aquinus was a greater thinker. BUT that was 800 years ago.

If he was alive today, with today's knowledge his starting place would be a lot different and it is not unreasonable to think he might have different conclusions. He might even be a scientist rather than a theologian.

I am 48, clearly I have stated that. Nor are your personal attacks acceptable, they are out of line. Disrespectful.

Reason is not a WAG, nor is it GIGO.

"Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this question way back in the 13th century. In the pondering of the concept of causality, the man noted that everything which happens in the natural universe has a cause. He also noted that there had to be an initial cause of the first things. He defined God as the initial causer of all things. God is "the uncaused cause," according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Although this is a very abstract definition and proof of God, it remains valid today."

I will agree that people who agree with WAG and what comes after GIGO have the right to believe that but I will not agree that it is reason.

Well that's good enough for me then. A simple, elegant proof that by defining something as so, without respect for evidence, the eventual answer is whatever you want it to be.

The current, best approximation suggests that Aquinas was likely wrong on the concept of causality, though I.D rejects that (again without respect for the evidence).

I.D. claims for himself, or for Aquinas, knowledge that is either not available, or not true, that there are no things, other than God, for which a cause is not required. Why only God should be given this special power, neither Aquinas nor I.D. can say.

GIGO indeed.I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored. The simulation scenario is first motivated by extrapolating current trends in computational resource requirements for lattice QCD into the future. Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences. Among the observables that are considered are the muon g-2 and the current differences between determinations of alpha, but the most stringent bound on the inverse lattice spacing of the universe, b^(-1) >~ 10^(11) GeV, is derived from the high-energy cut off of the cosmic ray spectrum. The numerical simulation scenario could reveal itself in the distributions of the highest energy cosmic rays exhibiting a degree of rotational symmetry breaking that reflects the structure of the underlying lattice.

So an interesting pursuit is to simulate quantum chromodynamics on a computer to see what kind of complexity arises. The promise is that simulating physics on such a fundamental level is more or less equivalent to simulating the universe itself.

There are one or two challenges of course. The physics is mind-bogglingly complex and operates on a vanishingly small scale. So even using the world’s most powerful supercomputers, physicists have only managed to simulate tiny corners of the cosmos just a few femtometers across. (A femtometer is 10^-15 metres.)

That may not sound like much but the significant point is that the simulation is essentially indistinguishable from the real thing (at least as far as we understand it).

It’s not hard to imagine that Moore’s Law-type progress will allow physicists to simulate significantly larger regions of space. A region just a few micrometres across could encapsulate the entire workings of a human cell.